In response to the question “what’s your assessment of the state of the climate,” Dr. Wadhams replied: “Well, first of all, what I see is an acceleration of global warming because, for instance, the rate of rise of CO2 in the atmosphere is unprecedented. Not only are we not reducing emissions to the point where CO2 is stabilized, but the CO2 level is rising exponentially; it’s going faster than its ever gone before… and then there’s [sic] the extreme weather events, which certainly have hit people in Europe….”

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) concern about CO2 is decisive: “Today’s rate of increase is more than 100 times faster than the increase that occurred when the last ice age ended.” One hundred times anything is big.”

Hunziker goes on to explain that the unprecedented CO2 growth rate and the horrid implications for ecosystems, climate, and life on the planet and in the oceans is nasty, but that it all can become even more extreme unexpectedly, a fact that few want to even imagine. Mr. not-so-Panglossian explains why that is.

In the first place, and very important for the optics of climate change, the largest indicators are afoot where nobody lives, for example, the Arctic, Antarctica, Greenland, Himalayan glaciers (headwaters for major rivers), Andean glaciers (headwaters for major rivers), the oceans, Patagonia. He notes that the million dollar question is epically rapid growth is at a tipping point at which it can’t be stopped.

He then names the first five extinctions, times, and effective losses, but writes that no one can say what losses the the sixth extinction now underway will be, save for the ‘unlucky insects’ crucial to other life forms that are already disappearing, whether due to climate or chemical poisoning; there’s ample evidence for both, I believe. But let’s move on to this fascinating explanation of the ‘facts’ that climate change denialists (as opposed to ‘Warmers’) love to note as ‘evidence’ of their beliefs.

“Firstly, it’s important to distinguish the significant impact of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere as a heat-trapping GHG, as for example, the paleoclimate record of millions of years ago shows CO2 at 400 ppm (parts per million) temps 5° to 10° warmer than today and sea level 75 feet higher than today. Whereas, in stark contrast to that scenario, 20,000 years ago CO2 was at 200 ppm, and sea level was 400 feet lower. It was the last Ice Age, the late Pleistocene Epoch. (Source: NASA)

All of which begs the question of why CO2 at 410 ppm today doesn’t bring on sea level rise 75 feet higher, similar to the event in the paleoclimate record. In point of fact, it might do that, in time, but the answer as of today has everything to do with the exponential rate of CO2 growth versus a much slower rate of CO2 growth millennia ago. Today’s exponential rapid increase within only 200-years is a flash of geologic time. As such, temps need time to catch up with the rapid rate of CO2 growth. Therefore, a latency effect is at work, which implies an ominous darkness, very dark indeed, hovering over the future.”

Yes, yes: today’s temperatures are a product of past CO2, thus the future temps will be ‘haunted’ by the galloping acceleration of today’s increases at 3ppm a year compared to 1ppm in 1945. Not long after that, the post-WWII great acceleration by industrialization clearly making the human footprint hitting the biosphere ‘like lightning’.

He then lists some of the feed-back loops at the poles as the ice melts, thus uncovering formerly frozen methane hydrates which heating power is even stronger than CO2.

He lists eight more current indicators and consequences; I’ll add one more:

“(7) Depletion of ocean oxygen and the most rapid acidification in millennia, threatening the base of the marine food chain.”

After a paragraph on the gamut of climate scientists’ beliefs about the future, he writes:

“Essentially, nobody accepts, or wants to believe worst case scenarios such as an extinction event, even though early warning signs of impending extinction are wide open for all to see, assuming they look in the right places, but nobody lives where the red warning lights and bells and whistles and loud sirens blare other than an occasional expeditionary scientist, who is belittled, humiliated, and badgered by America’s current political ruling class.

The idiom “Nero fiddles as Rome burns” arises anew, with an exclamation point.”

Next: ‘Six of the G7 Commit to Climate Action. Trump Wouldn’t Even Join Conversation; Trump skipped the formal climate discussions, had the U.S. negotiators promote fossil fuels instead, and then renounced the group’s official communique’, by Staff, InsideClimate News, Jun 10, 2018

Now you’ll love this photo-op for the media, staged, one has to assume by ‘the leader of the free world’ (for his base).

“Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan the UK and the European Union reaffirm their strong commitment to implement the Paris Agreement, through ambitious climate action; in particular through reducing emissions while stimulating innovation, enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening and financing resilience and reducing vulnerability; as well as ensuring a just transition, including increasing efforts to mobilize climate finance from a wide variety of sources,” the communique states.”

Well, I’m at a loss to translate what that purdy language actually signifies, but this is far easier to grasp, added to their really and truly we promise this time (given that the unenforceable voluntary COP targets are at best…aspirational, at worst…part of a long con.

“The leaders, minus the U.S., committed to reduce air and water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions to reach a global carbon-neutral economy during the second half of the century.

“the importance of carbon pricing, technology collaboration and innovation to continue advancing economic growth and protect the environment as part of sustainable, resilient and low-carbon energy systems”;

The ‘finance adaptation to climate change is crucial, yet…will they actually do it or finance it as below?

The Charlevoix Blueprint might be of great help if it didn’t contain so many weasel words like ‘Support’ this or that, but #2 stopped me cold:

“Support innovative financing for coastal resilience: Mobilize greater support for increasing financial resources available to build coastal resilience, particularly in developing countries, and exploring new and innovative financing with national and international public and private sector partners. To explore these innovative financing approaches and tools, we will build on existing platforms for governments, industry, philanthropists and institutional investors. We will explore broadening disaster risk insurance coverage, including through global and regional facilities, such as the InsuResilience Global Partnership, to extend high quality insurance coverage to vulnerable developing countries and beneficiaries in need and to encourage new types of insurance products for emerging risks. We welcome research, monitoring and gender analysis to increase both the range of insurance products and women’s access to financial resources for disaster risk management and recovery.”

Ah, well, color me a cynic, but it sounds like they’re openly signaling that (ahem) ‘profits will be made’.

And yeah, fuck Trump and the Fossil Fuel horse he rode into the oval, but dig it: from inside Nafeez Ahmed’s ‘Liberal Philanthropy Is Dooming The Planet To Climate Disaster, Documents Reveal’, Mintpressnews.com, June 16, 2018 (and more from his exposé in a Part II or III:

The report concludes that there is a vast “gap” between emission reductions pledged by governments under the Paris agreement (known as Nationally Determined Contributions or NDCs), and actual emissions reductions “necessary to achieve these agreed targets at lowest cost.”

The ‘NDC’s according to the UN Environment Synthesis report are a recipe for disaster, covering “approximately only one third of the emissions reductions needed to be on a least-cost pathway for the goal of staying well below 2C. The gap between the reductions needed and the national pledges made in Paris is alarmingly high.”

… it is clear that if the emissions gap is not closed by 2030, it is extremely unlikely that the goal of holding global warming to well below 2C can still be reached.”

Even if countries fulfil their pledges under the Paris agreement, by 2030 the available scope for further carbon emissions (known as the ‘carbon budget’) to keep global average temperatures around 1.5C “will already be well depleted by 2030.”

But remember that the US never ratified the Kyoto Protocols that kicked into effect in 2005 which tried to make agreed pledges enforceable. Are COPs better or worse? Depends who’s answerin’ the Q, of course.

(some is said to made of natural gas) no, let mr. market take care of it. well, okay, james hansen et.al. still want a carbon tax, but then he also wants nuclear power. but other parts will contain some pie-in-da-sky high-tech fixes as hinted at in the OP. gawd's blood, we're not even close to deserving this big beautiful big green ball we've ruined in such a short time.

and you may have fewer words left other than that after Parts II and likely III. great gif, by the by; whoosh. got to thinking a bit ago when i was watching the sole swallowtail to come her this year...sipping on a tall delphinium: i dream of butterflies, some of them huge, even. there's a poem in there somewhere; wish i had the poet in me.

solution to something that no cost too high applies, a livable biosphere, failure is guaranteed. The bottom line is that average CO2 emissions per human have to be below 3 tons a year by 2023 or there’ll be no end in sight to the 6th great extinction already underway.

up

11 users have voted.

—

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK | Bernie would have WON!

but i suspect you're correct given your certainty. but oh, 'they have apps for negative emissions'. next part. or the one after? i dunno, so much to present.

solution to something that no cost too high applies, a livable biosphere, failure is guaranteed. The bottom line is that average CO2 emissions per human have to be below 3 tons a year by 2023 or there’ll be no end in sight to the 6th great extinction already underway.

Wadhams knows as much about the Arctic ice as anybody, and is retired so he no longer has any fucks to give and says what he thinks. Consequently, they don't give him many chances to speak.
It's interesting how the bulk of the scientists pulling no punches are greybeards. I'm sure it's a big coincidence.
Greenhouse gases are like throwing another blanket on the bed on a cold night. You aren't instantly warmer, it takes several minutes for your body heat to raise the temperature to the new (higher) equilibrium. If that isn't high enough you throw on another blanket. For CO2 the maximum heating effect takes about 10 years, then gradually decays over 10,000 years or more.
There was a paper on soil bacteria published last year. Some bacteria digest carbon sequestered in soils and produce CO2. They become more active at higher temperatures. We're already past that particular tipping point and they are currently contributing over 1 ppm CO2 per year to the atmosphere. That's only going to increase.
If you fit a curve to the PIOMAS ice data it indicates Arctic sea ice going to zero (blue ocean event) in 2018, 2019, 2020, or a 5% chance of it being later than 2020. I don't see us getting there this year, though there are lot of warm weather systems pounding the Arctic. I strongly suspect 2019.
Homo Sapiens has never coexisted with an ice-free Arctic.
There was a paper published last summer that brine on top of ice floes interferes with the microwave technique they use to measure ice thickness. Thick, cold ice only has a 1% error, thin warm ice (summer ice) has up to a 20% error, and the error is overestimating the thickness, which means that 2020 is probably being optimistic.
In "Aliens", Vasquez is trying to weld shut a steel door while the xenomorphs are trying to punch their way through it and the rest of the group is discussing where to go. "Whatever you're going to do", sez Vasquez, "do it FAST."
We should do it fast.

paragraph breaks even to make sense of it. tomorrow i will. but you might say who wadhams is. gadzukes i hope he hadn't made appearance in this diary, lol.

Wadhams knows as much about the Arctic ice as anybody, and is retired so he no longer has any fucks to give and says what he thinks. Consequently, they don't give him many chances to speak.
It's interesting how the bulk of the scientists pulling no punches are greybeards. I'm sure it's a big coincidence.
Greenhouse gases are like throwing another blanket on the bed on a cold night. You aren't instantly warmer, it takes several minutes for your body heat to raise the temperature to the new (higher) equilibrium. If that isn't high enough you throw on another blanket. For CO2 the maximum heating effect takes about 10 years, then gradually decays over 10,000 years or more.
There was a paper on soil bacteria published last year. Some bacteria digest carbon sequestered in soils and produce CO2. They become more active at higher temperatures. We're already past that particular tipping point and they are currently contributing over 1 ppm CO2 per year to the atmosphere. That's only going to increase.
If you fit a curve to the PIOMAS ice data it indicates Arctic sea ice going to zero (blue ocean event) in 2018, 2019, 2020, or a 5% chance of it being later than 2020. I don't see us getting there this year, though there are lot of warm weather systems pounding the Arctic. I strongly suspect 2019.
Homo Sapiens has never coexisted with an ice-free Arctic.
There was a paper published last summer that brine on top of ice floes interferes with the microwave technique they use to measure ice thickness. Thick, cold ice only has a 1% error, thin warm ice (summer ice) has up to a 20% error, and the error is overestimating the thickness, which means that 2020 is probably being optimistic.
In "Aliens", Vasquez is trying to weld shut a steel door while the xenomorphs are trying to punch their way through it and the rest of the group is discussing where to go. "Whatever you're going to do", sez Vasquez, "do it FAST."
We should do it fast.

Wadhams knows as much about the Arctic ice as anybody, and is retired so he no longer has any fucks to give and says what he thinks. Consequently, they don't give him many chances to speak.
It's interesting how the bulk of the scientists pulling no punches are greybeards. I'm sure it's a big coincidence.
Greenhouse gases are like throwing another blanket on the bed on a cold night. You aren't instantly warmer, it takes several minutes for your body heat to raise the temperature to the new (higher) equilibrium. If that isn't high enough you throw on another blanket. For CO2 the maximum heating effect takes about 10 years, then gradually decays over 10,000 years or more.
There was a paper on soil bacteria published last year. Some bacteria digest carbon sequestered in soils and produce CO2. They become more active at higher temperatures. We're already past that particular tipping point and they are currently contributing over 1 ppm CO2 per year to the atmosphere. That's only going to increase.
If you fit a curve to the PIOMAS ice data it indicates Arctic sea ice going to zero (blue ocean event) in 2018, 2019, 2020, or a 5% chance of it being later than 2020. I don't see us getting there this year, though there are lot of warm weather systems pounding the Arctic. I strongly suspect 2019.
Homo Sapiens has never coexisted with an ice-free Arctic.
There was a paper published last summer that brine on top of ice floes interferes with the microwave technique they use to measure ice thickness. Thick, cold ice only has a 1% error, thin warm ice (summer ice) has up to a 20% error, and the error is overestimating the thickness, which means that 2020 is probably being optimistic.
In "Aliens", Vasquez is trying to weld shut a steel door while the xenomorphs are trying to punch their way through it and the rest of the group is discussing where to go. "Whatever you're going to do", sez Vasquez, "do it FAST."
We should do it fast.

thanks, i'll read it a second time soon (and perhaps edit in more later), but all the Good Geezer says seems right on target, save that i'm never sure about over-population as a true culprit, nor who the malthusians target is correct or just (esp. people of color, of course). but i'm the minority report on that. margaret sanger was also a eugenicist...for people of color, as is bill gates.

on later edit: i'd thunk he said this wonderfully well, and indeeed he had:

"Can civilisation prolong its life until the end of this century? “It depends on what we are prepared to do.” He fears it will be a long time before we take proportionate action to stop climatic calamity. “Standing in the way is capitalism. Can you imagine the global airline industry being dismantled when hundreds of new runways are being built right now all over the world? It’s almost as if we’re deliberately attempting to defy nature. We’re doing the reverse of what we should be doing, with everybody’s silent acquiescence, and nobody’s batting an eyelid.”

from a 2002 internal link:

“Hillman professes himself confident that the US will eventually sign Kyoto because September 11 signalled a realisation that the rest of the world impacts upon them. He makes an analogy with apartheid and South Africa refusing to heed international protests until world pressure became irresistible.

"People say technology will solve the problem, for instance, by making more efficient use of fuel, and I say no - if you don't reduce demand first, then by making it more efficient you'll increase demand for it. If you get more miles from the gallon, then you're lowering the cost of travel and effectively promoting it. You've got to reduce demand before you go down the efficiency and renewable energy route, and you reduce demand by rationing. At the start of the war, you didn't have the Tories saying we have to go to war against fascism, and the Labour party saying elect us, we won't go to war against fascism. There was a recognition that there was a joint enemy."

i think OPEC long kept oil prices low to convince 'us' that it was 'affordable', therefore a society could be based around it. where is public transportation really a viable choice, if indeed there is any at all? we all drive our little boxes on wheels, one man to a box, and head out shopping, shuttling chirren to pre-arranged adult-supervised 'safe activities', etc.

but as to 'Some bacteria digest carbon sequestered in soils and produce CO2. They become more active at higher temperatures', i'm not taking your meaning on the science re: some bacteria behave otherwise, i guess. from my readings agroecological farming, especially of the organic kind (not just permaculture), acts as a carbon sink, utilizing the carbon in photosynthesis, emitting oxygen.

but there may be exceptions to the rule, as the study you've quoted maintains. but the 1ppm you've quoted: did they mean land in which those errant bacteria are adding to the overall carbon footprint? you've throw me for a loss, obviously.

fascinating stuff on the brine interfering w/ the microwave ice thickness though. but boy, how, are there lots of conflicting study data out and about. but yes, it seems bye-bye ice, doesn't it? 'Homo Sapiens has never coexisted with an ice-free Arctic.' (smile)

Wadhams knows as much about the Arctic ice as anybody, and is retired so he no longer has any fucks to give and says what he thinks. Consequently, they don't give him many chances to speak.
It's interesting how the bulk of the scientists pulling no punches are greybeards. I'm sure it's a big coincidence.
Greenhouse gases are like throwing another blanket on the bed on a cold night. You aren't instantly warmer, it takes several minutes for your body heat to raise the temperature to the new (higher) equilibrium. If that isn't high enough you throw on another blanket. For CO2 the maximum heating effect takes about 10 years, then gradually decays over 10,000 years or more.
There was a paper on soil bacteria published last year. Some bacteria digest carbon sequestered in soils and produce CO2. They become more active at higher temperatures. We're already past that particular tipping point and they are currently contributing over 1 ppm CO2 per year to the atmosphere. That's only going to increase.
If you fit a curve to the PIOMAS ice data it indicates Arctic sea ice going to zero (blue ocean event) in 2018, 2019, 2020, or a 5% chance of it being later than 2020. I don't see us getting there this year, though there are lot of warm weather systems pounding the Arctic. I strongly suspect 2019.
Homo Sapiens has never coexisted with an ice-free Arctic.
There was a paper published last summer that brine on top of ice floes interferes with the microwave technique they use to measure ice thickness. Thick, cold ice only has a 1% error, thin warm ice (summer ice) has up to a 20% error, and the error is overestimating the thickness, which means that 2020 is probably being optimistic.
In "Aliens", Vasquez is trying to weld shut a steel door while the xenomorphs are trying to punch their way through it and the rest of the group is discussing where to go. "Whatever you're going to do", sez Vasquez, "do it FAST."
We should do it fast.

Excessive meat consumption ( especially beef ) can no longer be left out or ignored when it comes to climate change. It is just as bad and worse overall than the burning of fossil fuels according to many studies. Not to mention the contamination of the ground and water from feces and pesticides used to raise food for all these animals. “The biggest intervention people could make towards reducing their carbon footprints would not be to abandon cars, but to eat significantly less red meat,” Prof. Benton said. “Another recent study implies the single biggest intervention to free up calories that could be used to feed people would be not to use grains for beef production in the US.” However, he said the subject was always controversial: “This opens a real can of worms.”
Prof. Tim Benton University of Leeds

@pro left
Any idea who funded it? Just curious. And yes, I agree we should only eat organic grass-fed beef.

Excessive meat consumption ( especially beef ) can no longer be left out or ignored when it comes to climate change. It is just as bad and worse overall than the burning of fossil fuels according to many studies. Not to mention the contamination of the ground and water from feces and pesticides used to raise food for all these animals. “The biggest intervention people could make towards reducing their carbon footprints would not be to abandon cars, but to eat significantly less red meat,” Prof. Benton said. “Another recent study implies the single biggest intervention to free up calories that could be used to feed people would be not to use grains for beef production in the US.” However, he said the subject was always controversial: “This opens a real can of worms.”
Prof. Tim Benton University of Leeds

Excessive meat consumption ( especially beef ) can no longer be left out or ignored when it comes to climate change. It is just as bad and worse overall than the burning of fossil fuels according to many studies. Not to mention the contamination of the ground and water from feces and pesticides used to raise food for all these animals. “The biggest intervention people could make towards reducing their carbon footprints would not be to abandon cars, but to eat significantly less red meat,” Prof. Benton said. “Another recent study implies the single biggest intervention to free up calories that could be used to feed people would be not to use grains for beef production in the US.” However, he said the subject was always controversial: “This opens a real can of worms.”
Prof. Tim Benton University of Leeds

up

4 users have voted.

—

You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again you did not know. ~ William Wiberforce

If you can donate, please! POP Money is available for bank-to-bank transfers. Email JtC to make a monthly donation.

First, I loved the article on rewilding. Beautiful. Makes me wonder what is happening in the back 40 of our property. It has been left to its own devices for over 20 years. Many trees have grown, but animals and insects?

I wrote about geoengineering last week. It was a big major light bulb that came on in my head when it occurred to me that they have probably been doing it for a long time. They think they can control the weather, so climate change is no big deal. President Trump thinks he can thumb his nose at climate agreements because he controls the weather.

@pro left
I stopped eating red meat 5 years ago.
Do not miss it at all. And my health is fine -- and maybe even improved considering all the bad side effects of red meat that I now avoid.

Excessive meat consumption ( especially beef ) can no longer be left out or ignored when it comes to climate change. It is just as bad and worse overall than the burning of fossil fuels according to many studies. Not to mention the contamination of the ground and water from feces and pesticides used to raise food for all these animals. “The biggest intervention people could make towards reducing their carbon footprints would not be to abandon cars, but to eat significantly less red meat,” Prof. Benton said. “Another recent study implies the single biggest intervention to free up calories that could be used to feed people would be not to use grains for beef production in the US.” However, he said the subject was always controversial: “This opens a real can of worms.”
Prof. Tim Benton University of Leeds

up

4 users have voted.

—

Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.

@Citizen Of Earth
coming up on 5 yrs and I cant say I miss it one bit, I have also cut way back on other meats as well. I'm pushing 60yrs old and haven't felt as good as I do now since I was in my early 40s.

#5 I stopped eating red meat 5 years ago.
Do not miss it at all. And my health is fine -- and maybe even improved considering all the bad side effects of red meat that I now avoid.

but i did do some digging around for the source of that study concerning 'worse overall than the burning of fossil fuels according to many studies' that the woman in the jimmy dore interview had maintained to kinda rebut it on CS in AZ's diary on eye's transcription. at least the one study author i found maintained some arguably goofy 'facts', such as 80% of arable land was used to grow crops to feed animals, and stuff like that, as in: if you're trying to prove what you believe, you might just play fast and loose w/ the facts. i ditched my links after i spoke to CS in AZ about it, but trying to find them again brought me to the film and website 'cowspiracy'.

but as you say, animal feed lots are hideous blights on the biosphere, and feeding cows is a crap way to use farmland that could directly feed humans is and always has been crap (see: diet for a small planet), plus their methane footprint. i found one source that said in the US, 51% of crops feed people directly, the rest to feed animals and ugh, biofuels. but statistics, lol. some maps i saw i know were incorrect.

but then factory ag of all crops in this country and many nations is brought to you monsanto/bayer, poisoning the ground water, killing soil microbes, depleting aquifers, and tra la la. and as other nations around the globe as 'consumer societies', they want meat, dairy, not so much fish paste, rice, and lentils, sadly.

but i dunno that anything one person can do will help other than making a statement as to contributing less to the sixth extinction now, but that's no small thing, is it?.

Excessive meat consumption ( especially beef ) can no longer be left out or ignored when it comes to climate change. It is just as bad and worse overall than the burning of fossil fuels according to many studies. Not to mention the contamination of the ground and water from feces and pesticides used to raise food for all these animals. “The biggest intervention people could make towards reducing their carbon footprints would not be to abandon cars, but to eat significantly less red meat,” Prof. Benton said. “Another recent study implies the single biggest intervention to free up calories that could be used to feed people would be not to use grains for beef production in the US.” However, he said the subject was always controversial: “This opens a real can of worms.”
Prof. Tim Benton University of Leeds

I’ve not had time to look into it in great detail, and I didn’t save links or anything, but from what I read so far, my opinion is that it’s an important aspect of the overall situation we are in, there are many good reasons to avoid eating factory-farmed meat, and to eat less meat, and to chose healthy, local, free range/grass fed meat if/when you do eat it.

As to what impact it has on climate change, that is debatable and I don’t know the answer. It does have an impact. However, Nellie McKay did overstate the issue when she said it is “the primary driver” — and she is indeed coming from a philosophical point of view there, not a fact-based understanding of the issue. She is a vegan. And, you called it exactly right wendy, she’s a PETA member. I am sad to say. I won’t go into it right now on why I have major issues with PETA. I will say that according to their website, they no longer say they opppse keeping pets, although they still apparently believe it is morally wrong to do so. Anyway, she has a dog and advocates for their adoption, good on her. PETA, well... that is OT.

Bottom line: her statement was based on her beliefs, not facts.

I do not know all the pertinent facts to even form an opinion on what the real impact is. People adopt diet changes like we recycle or bike to work. Just whatever we can do, that also makes us feel a little better or less helpless.

Thank you again for promoting me to look into that comment. Late for work again- heh, gotta run now!

but i did do some digging around for the source of that study concerning 'worse overall than the burning of fossil fuels according to many studies' that the woman in the jimmy dore interview had maintained to kinda rebut it on CS in AZ's diary on eye's transcription. at least the one study author i found maintained some arguably goofy 'facts', such as 80% of arable land was used to grow crops to feed animals, and stuff like that, as in: if you're trying to prove what you believe, you might just play fast and loose w/ the facts. i ditched my links after i spoke to CS in AZ about it, but trying to find them again brought me to the film and website 'cowspiracy'.

but as you say, animal feed lots are hideous blights on the biosphere, and feeding cows is a crap way to use farmland that could directly feed humans is and always has been crap (see: diet for a small planet), plus their methane footprint. i found one source that said in the US, 51% of crops feed people directly, the rest to feed animals and ugh, biofuels. but statistics, lol. some maps i saw i know were incorrect.

but then factory ag of all crops in this country and many nations is brought to you monsanto/bayer, poisoning the ground water, killing soil microbes, depleting aquifers, and tra la la. and as other nations around the globe as 'consumer societies', they want meat, dairy, not so much fish paste, rice, and lentils, sadly.

but i dunno that anything one person can do will help other than making a statement as to contributing less to the sixth extinction now, but that's no small thing, is it?.

for looking past that simplistic explanation. i wish i'd kept the link to the author of the study i'd found, but lol: iirc his last name began with a K and ended with an M. an oooof, the bibliography at Cow Conspiracy is farrrrr too long to check for names. and i do indeed animal ag is horrid, and many experts are arguing instead for plant-based diet, maybe one serving of meat a week. of course, all plants are not equally healthy, but still.

and as i'd posited, what one person can do stop the runaway baked in sixth extinction is almost nil, but nonetheless, we can feel good about what we Are able and willing to do.

I’ve not had time to look into it in great detail, and I didn’t save links or anything, but from what I read so far, my opinion is that it’s an important aspect of the overall situation we are in, there are many good reasons to avoid eating factory-farmed meat, and to eat less meat, and to chose healthy, local, free range/grass fed meat if/when you do eat it.

As to what impact it has on climate change, that is debatable and I don’t know the answer. It does have an impact. However, Nellie McKay did overstate the issue when she said it is “the primary driver” — and she is indeed coming from a philosophical point of view there, not a fact-based understanding of the issue. She is a vegan. And, you called it exactly right wendy, she’s a PETA member. I am sad to say. I won’t go into it right now on why I have major issues with PETA. I will say that according to their website, they no longer say they opppse keeping pets, although they still apparently believe it is morally wrong to do so. Anyway, she has a dog and advocates for their adoption, good on her. PETA, well... that is OT.

Bottom line: her statement was based on her beliefs, not facts.

I do not know all the pertinent facts to even form an opinion on what the real impact is. People adopt diet changes like we recycle or bike to work. Just whatever we can do, that also makes us feel a little better or less helpless.

Thank you again for promoting me to look into that comment. Late for work again- heh, gotta run now!

@wendy davis
I did not mean to imply that that by not eating meat we could all get in our cars and go joy riding and all would be well. However there is plenty of info on the damage to the climate caused by meat consumption if one wants to take the time to investigate. There is a lot of denial going on by many, just as there was and is about fossil fuels. It doesn't really matter if it is worse or not it is a key factor in climate change and will have to be addressed as such. Just food for thought.

but i did do some digging around for the source of that study concerning 'worse overall than the burning of fossil fuels according to many studies' that the woman in the jimmy dore interview had maintained to kinda rebut it on CS in AZ's diary on eye's transcription. at least the one study author i found maintained some arguably goofy 'facts', such as 80% of arable land was used to grow crops to feed animals, and stuff like that, as in: if you're trying to prove what you believe, you might just play fast and loose w/ the facts. i ditched my links after i spoke to CS in AZ about it, but trying to find them again brought me to the film and website 'cowspiracy'.

but as you say, animal feed lots are hideous blights on the biosphere, and feeding cows is a crap way to use farmland that could directly feed humans is and always has been crap (see: diet for a small planet), plus their methane footprint. i found one source that said in the US, 51% of crops feed people directly, the rest to feed animals and ugh, biofuels. but statistics, lol. some maps i saw i know were incorrect.

but then factory ag of all crops in this country and many nations is brought to you monsanto/bayer, poisoning the ground water, killing soil microbes, depleting aquifers, and tra la la. and as other nations around the globe as 'consumer societies', they want meat, dairy, not so much fish paste, rice, and lentils, sadly.

but i dunno that anything one person can do will help other than making a statement as to contributing less to the sixth extinction now, but that's no small thing, is it?.

@pro left
If I'm being told I need to eat more grains, and less meat, I want to know if a large grain pusher is the one who's actually behind it. Virtually all corn in the U.S. is GM, and that is used to feed virtually all beef in the U.S. And, if we look back at human mortality over our brief history, the more grains we eat/ate, the more we died of things like heart disease, diabetes, etc. Back before we grew grains, we died of injuries, and accidents, or being killed by animals, including humans. We weren't fat, either. Between those eras, we died of infectious diseases. Our diet of heavy carbs (GM corn or some type of corn byproduct is in virtually every premade or prepackaged "food" item) is killing us.

I'd venture to bet that big grain ag has a pretty big carbon footprint too. Grass fed/free range meat, organic veggies and fruit, and little to no organic grains is, imho, the best way forward for the time we have left on this planet.

#5.4 I did not mean to imply that that by not eating meat we could all get in our cars and go joy riding and all would be well. However there is plenty of info on the damage to the climate caused by meat consumption if one wants to take the time to investigate. There is a lot of denial going on by many, just as there was and is about fossil fuels. It doesn't really matter if it is worse or not it is a key factor in climate change and will have to be addressed as such. Just food for thought.

"Study ties fertilizers, animal waste, changes to atmospheric chemistry and climate change to increased ammonia over the United States, Europe, China and India

The first global, long-term satellite study of airborne ammonia gas has revealed “hotspots” of the pollutant over four of the world’s most productive agricultural regions. The results of the study, conducted using data from NASA’s Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument on NASA’s Aqua satellite, could inform the development of strategies to control pollution from ammonia and ammonia byproducts in Earth’s agricultural areas."

not that it ain't too late already, but...evidence/

#5.4 I did not mean to imply that that by not eating meat we could all get in our cars and go joy riding and all would be well. However there is plenty of info on the damage to the climate caused by meat consumption if one wants to take the time to investigate. There is a lot of denial going on by many, just as there was and is about fossil fuels. It doesn't really matter if it is worse or not it is a key factor in climate change and will have to be addressed as such. Just food for thought.

'to end all financial investments or relationships (divestment) with companies that generate the majority of their income from the exploration for, production of, transportation of, or sale of fossil fuels’

'To date, over 880 institutions from all sectors of society representing more than $6 trillion in assets have committed to some level of divestment.

while representing the minority,, i blame the big green 'climate heroes' like mcKibben an klein for a number of reasons, but for one: the divestment tours. someone's gonna buy back that stock, likely at a better price than what those 'divesting' paid, especially with virtually interest-free fed money. among the many other reasons is this: neither one of them EVER noted that the largest carbon footprint in amerika is the military, not to mention 1000 bases worldwide.

both of them are funded by the usual philanthropic green-washing orgs like rockefeller, ford, i forget which all. but mcKibben is a dem gatekeeper. i'd have to look up how cory morningstar portrayed him at the rio 2012 sustainability conference, partially by way of defending his 'brand'. and yes, keep yer eyes on the keystone XL prize' while everything else goes begging.

sorry to snarl, but they both piss me purple (she sayed in the most polite was possible...)

350.org announced recently the resolution of the AMA to divest from the fossil fuel industry.

...but it ain't gonna happen. Here's Trudeau nationalizing his pipelines to sell the dirtiest oil on the planet (through one of the most pristine regions in the world - BC's coast) and he's talking Climate...really?

given that the unenforceable voluntary COP targets are at best…aspirational, at worst…part of a long con.

energy industries, jobs jobs jobs!' hadn't read about nationalizing one of them, but the first two he'd flat out okey-doked he'd said the above. even ensler gets published at dissident voice a lot, and boy, howdy, does she toast pretty boy obomba trudeau and chrystia freeland, canadian minister of foreign affairs. i'd thought she was their trade rep as well. ah, just looked it up: that was her former gig. kewl.

...but it ain't gonna happen. Here's Trudeau nationalizing his pipelines to sell the dirtiest oil on the planet (through one of the most pristine regions in the world - BC's coast) and he's talking Climate...really?

given that the unenforceable voluntary COP targets are at best…aspirational, at worst…part of a long con.

Kinder Morgan couldn't face the heat from the first nations and environmentalists...but there's a way around that. Just nationalize and dictate. He's got a fight on his hands.

Pretty boys wrapped in suits work well for the oligarchs. He's a suit on many levels. (As is pretty boy Macron , the banker...privatizing transportation)

On May 16, 2018, Canada’s Prime Minister issued a statement calling for an “immediate independent investigation” into the “tragic” killing and wounding of “countless” protesters in Gaza. Trudeau professed in his statement to be “appalled that Dr. Tarek Loubani, a Canadian citizen, is among the wounded – along with so many unarmed people, including civilians, members of the media, first responders, and children.”

A mere two days later, in a debate at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), Trudeau’s government opposed just such an investigation. Ultimately, the UNHRC voted by a margin of 29-2, with 14 abstentions, to establish a Commission of Inquiry into the Gaza massacres.

energy industries, jobs jobs jobs!' hadn't read about nationalizing one of them, but the first two he'd flat out okey-doked he'd said the above. even ensler gets published at dissident voice a lot, and boy, howdy, does she toast pretty boy obomba trudeau and chrystia freeland, canadian minister of foreign affairs. i'd thought she was their trade rep as well. ah, just looked it up: that was her former gig. kewl.

up

3 users have voted.

—

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Kinder Morgan couldn't face the heat from the first nations and environmentalists...but there's a way around that. Just nationalize and dictate. He's got a fight on his hands.

Pretty boys wrapped in suits work well for the oligarchs. He's a suit on many levels. (As is pretty boy Macron , the banker...privatizing transportation)

On May 16, 2018, Canada’s Prime Minister issued a statement calling for an “immediate independent investigation” into the “tragic” killing and wounding of “countless” protesters in Gaza. Trudeau professed in his statement to be “appalled that Dr. Tarek Loubani, a Canadian citizen, is among the wounded – along with so many unarmed people, including civilians, members of the media, first responders, and children.”

A mere two days later, in a debate at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), Trudeau’s government opposed just such an investigation. Ultimately, the UNHRC voted by a margin of 29-2, with 14 abstentions, to establish a Commission of Inquiry into the Gaza massacres.

isn't trans mountain the only one of the three major pipelines he hadn't automatically approved because: the reasons i posted above? yeah, macron is another western puppet that blows hot and cold on this amerikan Presididid't.

but oh...water; now there's a dicey subject. soon, but for now i'm going crazy collecting tweets on today's global #Unity4Assange bout to give it up a i done got a hegg-ache big as
the eggplant that ate chicago.

guess we'll see how the UN investigations into gaza goes; iddnae know there'd been a new vote. hey nikki gurl: we're lookin' at you!

Kinder Morgan couldn't face the heat from the first nations and environmentalists...but there's a way around that. Just nationalize and dictate. He's got a fight on his hands.

Pretty boys wrapped in suits work well for the oligarchs. He's a suit on many levels. (As is pretty boy Macron , the banker...privatizing transportation)

On May 16, 2018, Canada’s Prime Minister issued a statement calling for an “immediate independent investigation” into the “tragic” killing and wounding of “countless” protesters in Gaza. Trudeau professed in his statement to be “appalled that Dr. Tarek Loubani, a Canadian citizen, is among the wounded – along with so many unarmed people, including civilians, members of the media, first responders, and children.”

A mere two days later, in a debate at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), Trudeau’s government opposed just such an investigation. Ultimately, the UNHRC voted by a margin of 29-2, with 14 abstentions, to establish a Commission of Inquiry into the Gaza massacres.